Does Donald Trump's 'Board of Peace' undermine the UN?

The United Nations has had its fair share of knocks over its 80 years.

However, the latest move by US President Donald Trump to set up a rival organisation under his personal stewardship could prove its biggest challenge yet.

For now, UN officials are pushing back.

Asked by RTÉ News if Mr Trump's 'Board of Peace' undermined the UN, La Neice Collins, spokesperson for the President of UN General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock, said: "There is one universal multilateral organisation to deal with peace and security issues and that is the United Nations."

The board of peace, she said, was established under UN Security Council Resolution 2803 with a "very specific mandate, as it relates to Gaza".

"The UN is the organisation mandated by the global international community to deal with these issues of peace and security," she added.

It seems the US President disagrees.

A draft charter of the board of peace to "promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict" suggests a much broader remit beyond the Gaza conflict.

And the preamble of the charter appears to make a direct dig at UN multilateralism.

"Durable peace requires pragmatic judgement, common sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed," it states.

In addition, the board of peace would invest considerable power in one man - Donald Trump.

"The chairman shall have exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities as necessary or appropriate to fulfil the board of peace’s mission," the text states.

Mr Trump would only be removed from his role as chairman "following voluntary resignation or as a result of incapacity, as determined by a unanimous vote of the executive board".

Mr Trump would also have a casting vote in the event of a "tie".

For $1 billion (€860 million) in cash funds, member states can buy a permanent seat.

Otherwise, it is just a three-year tenure.

"It is a massive chunk of money, especially as many countries are fortifying their defence and national spending, as we're seeing aid cuts around the globe," said Maya Ungar, UN analyst with the International Crisis Group.

"This is not a moment where, even if they wanted to, most countries in the world would have $1 billion to spend," she said.

So far 60 countries - including Ireland - are reported to have received an invitation to join this new club of nations, with an inaugural meeting lined up on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos this week.

While EU nations expressed caution, the plan was received quite warmly in Moscow.

A Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia was "currently reviewing all the details of this offer, and we hope to establish contact with the American side to clarify all the nuances".

Russia's ally Belarus accepted the invitation readily.

"We are ready to participate in the activity of the peace board and expect and hope that the organisation will greatly expand its scope and powers beyond the limits of the initiative," a spokesman for the Belarusian foreign ministry said.

It comes at a time when the UN is already in crisis over crippling funding shortfalls, job losses and political paralysis at Security Council level.

The US is unlikely to pay its arrears or dues for the regular budget, and announced just $2bn for UN humanitarian funds - a tiny amount in comparison to previous years.

The US State Department said the UN must "adapt, shrink or die" and subsequently announced the US withdrawal from dozens of UN agencies.

In an interview with the BBC, UN Secretary General António Guterres acknowledged that the UN was not working as it should.

The UN Security Council was ineffective, he said, and no longer represented the world.

He said vetoes were being used by the great powers to further their own interests.

"There are those that believe the power of law should be replaced by the law of power," he said.

But while the board of peace appears to resemble a club of nations like the UN, there are fundamental differences, Ms Ungar said, not least because it would establish US power as primary.

"The Security Council as it exists, although there are many disagreements and there's much gridlock, it's a space where these countries talk and discuss their policies, cooperation and, very importantly, their red lines on particular issues," she said.

"And that kind of constructive dialog is very unlikely to happen in an institution that is set up with a very clear power structure, which excludes many of the other great powers in the system," she added.

Also, the UN Security Council oversees 60,000 peacekeepers, 15 different sanctions regimes, writes mandates that influence humanitarian operations that feed and shelter and vaccinate millions of people around the world, she said.

By contrast, the board of peace has little meat in the system.

"They are just building out the toppings right now," she added.